Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion and science?

Question

Can religion be superseded by science?

Answer 1

No...(neither side contradicts the other...Hear That People...!!! Neither Side Contradicts the Other...!!!)

It's like comparing a common "rock" with the concept of "love..."

Science simply has no way to "test" the religious hypothesis...(the only movie I've seen that attempted to so was the movie "Flatliners," and very few people I know think THAT would be a test worth risking, because we don't know if there's an afterlife or not...and the only way to find out is what we're ALL trying to avoid, religious or not...)

I've met a few religious Geneticists and other scientists who (like me) are convinced that "Natural Selection" is the primary driving force behind our existence and development since the beginning of life on our planet...but they have no problem incorporating their religious faith with the undeniable scientific evidence of "Evolution" by simply believing that "God" created an "evolutionary" process to create us...makes sense to me...

What doesn't make sense to me, is people who can't simply come to the same conclusion they did, instead of vehemently denying all the undeniable evidence for "Evolution" when it's staring them right in the face...

THAT'S what I don't get...

Answer 2

I don't think there is a contradiction. Generically speaking, both are in search of the truth. The paths to the truth are more than the routes you could take to drive from Los Angeles to New York. But since the destination is the same, any contradiction is going to be more of an argument over semantics or someone allowing human nature to cloud the topic. You take the high road and I'll take the low road. When we get to the Big Apple, we can argue about whose route was best. But we will have to agree that we reached the same conclusion.

Answer 3

Religion is a philosophy of how the world is and how it should be. Every religion has some sort of doctrine.
Science is a philosophy of how the world is and how it should be. Each field of science has its own philosophy, rules to follow.
Then each individual sees the world differently. We each have our own personal views science and religion.
Both have the same goal of explaining our reality and have equal significance in the long run. Also both say the same thing if you are willing to open your mind, look past the words, and see what they are trying to discover.
So, in the end we shouldn't spend so much time arguing over words, but trying to discover the truth about what is.

Answer 4

There exists a logical contradiction between (a) taking things on faith and (b) demanding evidence for them.

All of us, though, live our lives on both sides of that divide. So I wouldn't call this an "insuperable" contradiction. There is a good deal that even the most insistent skeptic simply takes on faith. Those of us who aren't trained as physicists probably have no good reason to believe that neutrons exist, except that people who do know about the evidence inform us that they do. We take it on faith that they aren't bull-defecating us!

Certain forms of religious belief put themselves at odds with science. But there are fewer of them than aggressive secularists think.

For example, Tertullian -- a Church father -- is often quoted saying "I believe because it's absurd." In fact, though, that phrase is usually taken out of context and that he wasn't as much of an irrationalist as his reputation indicates.

So, yes, if there are any fideists who deliberately reject fact and reason -- THAT is obviously at odds with science. But actual examples of that are difficult to find.

Answer 5

Religion was really the first scienece if you really break it down. This is because religion in its purest form was created to explain the world around us. I beleive that is why manny cultures worshiped the sun because it was beyond their scope of understanding, anything that big and powerfull must be a god. Ofcourse the way we veiw religion now is different because our science can explain things that we previously didnt understand. The split from relgion and science happens when religion can no longer explain things like science can. But I tend to think that religion at one point was a form of science.

I hope that helps. I love theology questions.

Answer 6

religion is based on a distorted worldview, science is a way of looking at the world using that elusive objective reality and paradigm of physics that changes as new discoveries and observations are made. I doubt whether they will be reconciled, but, having an open mind is never having to say never.....

Answer 7

The regulation of gravitation is organic regulation, in basic terms using fact the orbiting of the planets and formation of galaxies, and so on. no person or no longer something can exchange those rules. God is in basic terms a figment of your mind's eye, promoted by utilising countless cultures relationship back to the Stone Age. scientific suggestions weren't invented, yet somewhat chanced on by using evolution of human good judgment and reason. that's human nature to choose for solutions to all questions. regrettably, there are nonetheless some questions which technology isn't able to respond to immediately. yet sooner or later, faith will flow the way of the dinosaur. have confidence me in this.

Answer 8

As Albert Einstein said: "Science without Religion is lame, Religion without Science is blind".

I think that was the proverb.

Answer 9

I think neither can live if one of them isn't there. but here's what i found(hope it helps)

Creation-evolution controversy in the age of Darwin
The creation-evolution controversy originated in Europe and North America in the late eighteenth century when discoveries in geology led to various theories of an ancient earth, and fossils showing past extinctions prompted early ideas of evolutionism, notably Lamarckism. In England these ideas of continuing change were seen as a threat to the fixed social order, and were harshly repressed.[14] Conditions eased, and in 1844 the controversial Vestiges popularised transmutation of species. The scientific establishment dismissed it scornfully and the Church of England reacted with fury, but many Unitarians, Quakers and Baptists opposed to the privileges of the Established church favoured its ideas of God acting through laws. Publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859 brought scientific credibility to evolution, and made it more respectable.[15][16]

There was intense interest in the religious implications of Darwin's book, but Church of England attention was largely diverted by theological controversy over higher criticism set out in Essays and Reviews by liberal Christian authors, some of whom expressed support for Darwin, as did many nonconformists. The Reverend Charles Kingsley openly supported the idea of God working through evolution. However, many Christians were opposed to the idea and even some of Darwin's close friends and supporters including Charles Lyell and Asa Gray could not accept some of his ideas.[17] Thomas Huxley, who strongly promoted Darwin's ideas while campaigning to end the dominance of science by the clergy, coined the term agnostic to describe his position that God’s existence is unknowable, and Darwin also took this position,[17] but evolution was also taken up by prominent atheists including Edward Aveling and Ludwig Büchner and criticised, in the words of one reviewer, as "tantamount to atheism".[18][19] By the end of the century Roman Catholics guided by Pope Leo XIII accepted human evolution from animal ancestors while affirming that the human soul was directly created by God.[17]

Creationists during this period were largely premillennialists, whose belief in Christ's return depended on a quasi-literal reading of the Bible.[20] However, they were not as concerned about geology, freely granting scientists any time they needed before the Garden of Eden to account for scientific observations, such as fossils and geological findings.[21] In the immediate post-Darwinian era, few scientists or clerics rejected the antiquity of the earth or the progressive nature of the fossil record.[22] Likewise, few attached geological significance to the Biblical flood, unlike subsequent creationists.[22] Evolutionary skeptics, creationist leaders and skeptical scientists were usually willing either to adopt a figurative reading of the first chapter of Genesis, or to allow that the six days of creation were not necessarily 24-hour days.[23]